Policy Advocacy for Disaster Risk Reduction Integration in Regional Spatial Planning: Lessons from Purwakarta
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55885/jprsp.v5i3.637Keywords:
Policy Advocacy, Disaster Risk Reduction, Spatial Planning, RTRW Purwakarta RegencyAbstract
This study investigates policy advocacy strategies employed to integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) into spatial planning through a case study of the revised Spatial Plan (RTRW) of Purwakarta Regency for 2025–2045. Given Indonesia’s high disaster risk profile, integrating DRR into planning documents is crucial to ensuring sustainable and resilient regional development. Despite national regulatory mandates, the previous RTRW of Purwakarta (2011–2031) inadequately addressed disaster vulnerability. This research adopts a qualitative descriptive case study design, using in-depth interviews with stakeholders from local government agencies and technical experts. The analysis is guided by the Advocacy Logic Model by Gen and Wright (2013), which outlines advocacy components including input, activities, and outcomes. The integration of DRR into the revised RTRW of Purwakarta was largely driven by a strong sense of agency among stakeholders, effective inter-agency collaboration, and the technocratic engagement of experts. Key activities involved coalition-building, engaging policymakers, public mobilization, and defensive actions to sustain reform momentum. These strategies led to a substantial shift in decision-makers' awareness, resulting in the formal incorporation of spatially explicit disaster risk data into the revised RTRW. The study concludes that strategic and context-sensitive advocacy can effectively bridge the gap between regulatory imperatives and local implementation, especially in regions facing complex disaster risks. These findings offer practical insights for policymakers and contribute theoretically to the literature on disaster governance and public policy advocacy.References
Bautista‐Beauchesne, N. (2022). Building anti‐corruption agency collaboration and reputation: Hanging together or separately hanged. Regulation & Governance, 16(4), 1399-1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12433
Bibri, S. E. (2021). Data-driven smart sustainable urbanism: the intertwined societal factors underlying its materialization, success, expansion, and evolution. GeoJournal, 86(1), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10061-x
Dandoulaki, M., Lazoglou, M., Pangas, N., & Serraos, K. (2023). Disaster risk management and spatial planning: evidence from the Fire-Stricken Area of Mati, Greece. Sustainability, 15(12), 9776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129776
Del Pinto, M., Chmutina, K., Palaiologou, F., & Bosher, L. (2024). The role of the Spatial Network in Urban Disaster Risk variations: reimagining the notion of spatial vulnerability at the Urban Scale. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 15(3), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00554-w
Elgin, D. J., & Weible, C. M. (2013). A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Review of Policy Research, 30(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12005
Farinós-Dasí, J., Pinazo-Dallenbach, P., Peiró Sánchez-Manjavacas, E., & Rodríguez-Bernal, D. C. (2024). Disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and the role of spatial and urban planning: evidence from European case studies. Natural Hazards, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06448-w
Gen, S., & Wright, A. C. (2013). Policy advocacy organizations: A framework linking theory and practice. Journal of Policy Practice, 12(3), 163-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2013.795477
Inch, A. (2012). Deconstructing spatial planning: re-interpreting the articulation of a new ethos for English local planning. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 1039-1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.673564
Khan, M. T. I., Anwar, S., & Batool, Z. (2022). The role of infrastructure, socio-economic development, and food security to mitigate the loss of natural disasters. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(35), 52412-52437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19293-w
Mahadiansar, M., Ikhsan, K., Sentanu, I. G. E. P. S., & Aspariyana, A. (2020). Paradigma pengembangan model pembangunan nasional Di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi: Media Pengembangan Ilmu Dan Praktek Administrasi, 17(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.31113/jia.v17i1.550
Nasution, A. K., & Kosasih, N. (2025). Analisis Naratif Kampanye Jerhemy Owen tentang Pengelolaan Sampah Banyumas di Media Sosial. Publish: Basic and Applied Research Publication on Communications, 4(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.35814/njqv4z74
Nurikhsan, M., Kamaruddin, S. A., & Awaru, A. O. T. (2025). Evolusi Paradigma Respon Sosial terhadap Bencana: Analisis Literatur dari Pendekatan Reaktif ke Proaktif. Journal Of Administrative And Social Science, 6(2), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.55606/jass.v6i2.1934
Orsini, A., & Compagnon, D. (2013). From logics to procedures: arguing within international environmental negotiations. Critical policy studies, 7(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2012.752970
Paasi, A. (2013). Regional planning and the mobilization of ‘regional identity’: From bounded spaces to relational complexity. Regional studies, 47(8), 1206-1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.661410
Pahl-Wostl, C., Palmer, M., & Richards, K. (2013). Enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature—the role of governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 676-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.018
Preston, B. L., Yuen, E. J., & Westaway, R. M. (2011). Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustainability science, 6(2), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0129-1
Rozita, S. G., & Setiadi, R. (2020). Kerangka kerja penilaian rencana tata ruang berbasis manajemen risiko bencana. Region: Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah dan Perencanaan Partisipatif, 15(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.20961/region.v15i2.38451
Schut, M., van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C., & Klerkx, L. (2014). Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and public policy, 41(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048
Sina, D., Chang-Richards, A. Y., Wilkinson, S., & Potangaroa, R. (2019). What does the future hold for relocated communities post-disaster? Factors affecting livelihood resilience. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 34, 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.11.015
Stern, R. J., Scholl, D. W., & Fryer, G. (2016). An introduction to convergent margins and their natural hazards. Plate boundaries and natural hazards, 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119054146.ch4
Suprapto, N., & Rizki, I. A. (2024). Evaluation of Geohazards Research in the World and Pacific Region: A Comparative Bibliometric Study. The Iraqi Geological Journal, 143-161. https://doi.org/10.46717/igj.57.2A.11ms-2024-7-21
Umar, F. Q., Tawakkal, G. T. I., & Sobari, W. (2023). Analisis Kepemimpinan Politik BUMDes Kerto Raharjo Dalam Meningkatkan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Ekowisata Boonpring. Satwika: Kajian Ilmu Budaya dan Perubahan Sosial, 7(2), 419-446. https://doi.org/10.22219/satwika.v7i2.28072
Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015
Yanuari, F. S. Y., & Prangsi, D. (2020). Kajian Yuridis Efektivitas Penegakan Hukum Pidana Dalam UU Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang. Padjadjaran Law Review, 8(2), 27-40.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Public Representative and Society Provision
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
